What are the odds of Harry Greb Film ever being discovered?

Well, whatever Grebs style looked like, it was obviously the style of greatness.

How many fighters even come close to Greb? They're in the single digits.

 

I think the problem is people expecting Greb to look like Sugar Ray Robinson or something. Greb was considered an awkward fighter with an aesthetically unpleasant style during his lifetime, particularly in the period when we are most likely to find film of him, after he was blinded in one eye and began fighting a much more physical, mauling style. The people who act like films of him have been hidden to keep his reputation dont seem to realize that it was not some big secret that he fought like this. The bottom line is that he got results against fighters who are likely much more aesthetically pleasing and more classical. Whether critics like his style or not it wont change the fact that he beat those guys. Mickey Walker looks like an all time great on film. Hes strong, hits hard, can box and slug, can pressure or box on the back foot and Greb beat him without question. Likewise Tunney, the Gibbons brothers, Jeff Smith, etc. You can say "eh, I dont really like his style" but you cant argue with the results. Those two things are mutually exclusive. If a film is found and you go in having unrealistic expectations then you will disappointed. If we had a film of him in 1919 or 1920 it might be different because he had a different style to a degree in that period. He was much more of a changeup pitcher who came out and confused his opponents with different punches and different styles each round. Later in his career as he got older and blinder he would often give away the first few rounds, letting an opponent burn himself out, then he would take over and gradually increase his pace round after round wearing an opponent down and finishing very strong. He was often accused in this period of holding and hitting because he had no depth perception. He had often had to hold an opponent while punching in order to get the range. This style of infighting fit very well with how boxing was conducted in Pittsburgh when Greb turned pro. It was a rough town the steel workers and coal miners demanded action so the fighters fought a rough, brawling style of infighting that Greb later adapted to his own needs. Prior to his injury he was a much more mobile fighter who rarely got hit.

 

The way a guy looks in the ring and who he beats in the ring are NEVER mutually exclusive WHEN there is film of the fight.

If you hear a guy beat another top fighter, the first thing you want to do is see the fight.

Then you judge the "win" based on how the fighters (BOTH of them) look.

With Greb, he's way up here based primarily on who he won newspaper decisions over (and even the newspaper guys couldn't agree on a lot of those 'wins'). But nobody can say much, because that's all we've got to go on.

So everyone pictures the fight their own way ... and the guys Greb beat are always fighting at their very best ... and Greb is always much better than they are at their best.

So, he's way up there.

If we see film and Greb looks like Mike "The Bounty" Hunter outpointing Dwight Qawi, Pinklon Thomas, Oliver McCall .. and the names Greb beat look like Qawi, Thomas and McCall when Hunter beat them ... Greb's status will fall.

Film is often more accurate than word of mouth.

Fans today think sanctioned, trained judges are terrible and often disagree with them.

With Greb, if more drunk reporters reporting on his fights agreed on the outcome than the other drunk reporters who were there who thought Greb lost, then Greb was the winner.

And anyone who doubts the results doesn't know boxing.

When and if Harry Greb fights become available to the general public, his rep will take a tumble just like every fighter who has been captured on film has taken a tumble, because that happens to every fighter we see on tape.

When there's film, the results and how a guy (and his opponent) performed, are no longer mutually exclusive.

 

So what you suggest is that Greb is basically overglorified by newspaper decisions and he beat most fighters past their primes?

 

Jesus. Does everything have to turn into an argument?

No one alive has seen Harry Greb fight. Therefore, every image of every fight of Greb's that we read about is different to EVERYONE, because no one alive has seen ANY of those fights.

When we CAN see them, and critique him, he'll be judged liked everyone else is judged.

And people will say things like: "Hmm, after watching him get beaten half to death by Soldier Jones in that one fight, I think Hagler probably kills him." Like they do to all fighters who have bad outings against bad fighters.

Or you'll get, "Boy, Tunney looked like Garbage in that fight. He wasn't nearly as good as he'd become later. And Greb looked worse. Who was scoring that?"

Because boxing fans can't even agree on fights they see. And Greb has avoided that, because nobody can see how he looked, or how his opponents looked, or if they thought the judges got it right.

He's immune to that. When he isn't immune, he'll take a tumble. Every fighter does when you can analyze every second of their fights.

 

As usual more ignorant nonsense from you on a subject and era you clearly dont know much about.

The simple fact that you state categorically that Grebs reputation will tumble if film is found of him shows your bias and agenda, as does your ridiculous comment about newspaper reporters at the time. You could throw out Grebs newspaper decisions and record still shits all over most fighters in history. Nevermind that the newspapers were ridiculously consistent in voting him the winner. Ive told the story before but ill tell it again: the hardest part of my book to write was the year everyone always talks about 1919. The amount of fights he had and the ridiculous consistency whereby Greb was dominating opponents to the point that they often according to numerous eyewitness barely hit him while he was painting a tattoo on them literally got monotonous. His dominance sucked much of the drama out of any narrative. So yeah, your comments hold zero water. Then in 1920 he loses one bout to a HOFer. Doesnt lose a bout in 1921. Doesnt lose a bout in 1922. Gets robbed in early 1923 in a bout that the badt majority of newspapers (mostly hometown papers of his opponent) called it the worst robbery they had seen. Yeah, I think Ill defer to those experts you label as drunks rather than some nobody on the internet blowing hot air out of his ass.

Sorry but how a fighter looks to you aesthetically and the results he achieves are two different things and are mutually exclusive. Greb dominated Loughran over 15 to an official decision, he dominated and beat the hell out of Tunney and Walker to a fifteen round decision, he dominated Tommy Gibbons to a 15 round decision, he dominated Leo Houck to a 12 round decision, he easily beat Jeff Smith on a 12 round decision. In every one of these fights, all against hall of famers, Greb won and did so on the round either on neutral territory or the hometown of the opponent. Thats to say nothing of the unanimous votes he got in ND fights in dominating guys like Dillon, Levinsky, Rosenbloom, where there was zero question among anyone who won those fights. Those decision fights, away from home before observers hardly partial to Greb also strongly support the newspaper accounts of Greb and of course most of those guys fought and lost to Greb in other ND fights as well. So, to pretend that Grebs record is built on nothing but fantasy is either sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the facts or just spoken out of ignorance. I dont care if Greb beat Walker while hopping around on one leg. The fact is one of the greatest fighters in history couldnt figure out how to beat Greb and thats ok because MANY of the greatest fighters in history had a tough time with that particular problem, REGARDLESS OF HOW GREB LOOKED WHEN HE WAS KICKING THEIR ASSES.

Finally, plenty of fighters have benefitted from footage being discovered of them. To pretend that every fighter has suffered when finally seen is once again just hyperbole to bolster your shallow argument. Nobody remembered ODowd despite being champion for several years yet he looks very good on film. Likewise Jeff Smith. The only footage we had of Clabby was losing to the bigger stronger Darcy until 10 yrs ago and then when we find him winning he looks very good and very modern which is supported by contemporary reports. I could literally go on and on but your point is ridiculous.

 

I think Greb's resume is easily top 3.. and he's a top 3 p4p ATG. I disagree though with some comments of a few that, just because he got the results means that his style had to be great. I disagree with that always being the case. To a lesser degree, that just because you beat someone means that you're a better boxer than them. This is illustrated perfectly by the Bob Sapp vs. Ernesto Hoost. Sapp mauled and bludgeoned his way to beating one of the best K1 fighters ever on multiple occasions. Mauling him all over the ring doesn't mean we say "that is what greatest looks like" (Janitor). No, that isn't what greatness looks like. Neither would I believe that Sapp is a better K1 fighter than Hoost just because he beat him. People more look at it like.. well yeah... if you maul a guy to death you might win, but that doesn't mean your a better fighter and what greatness looks like. Again, I'm not saying it necessarily applies to Greb because of his expansive resume, I'm simply saying how you win can and does matter.

 

Wrong. If that was the case, Ali KO1 Liston would be the greatest first round knockout win in heavyweight history. And everyone would agree with that.

On paper, knocking out Sonny Liston in one (and it also being one of the fastest KOs in heavyweight history) would also be the greatest knockout of Ali's career. When we see it, however, we know it's not.

This isn't brain surgery.

And you only have to spend a moment on this board to know how a fighter and his opponent looks in the ring on a particular night MATTERS A TON. Wins and losses are dismissed if a name opponent doesn't look his best or if people don't agree with scorecards or the officiating.

And considering you poured over thousands of newspaper accounts of Greb, wrote a book on him, and determined he won fights based on how many newspaper accounts were similar and took those as fact and brushed aside those accounts that didn't jibe with the majority, you are hardly an objective observer.

You've seen him fight just as many times as I have. Zero.

Greb wasn't considered a serious threat to Dempsey when people could see Greb fight. And guys who did see him fight and thought he lost certain fights are discounted by you (even though you haven't seen those fights and they did), if you could find more articles that said he won.

That's hardly an objective way to judge a fight.

And three judges can score a win for a guy unanimously today, and people will watch the fight and disagree and argue about it for years. Because they can watch it and argue what they see with others who can see it, too.

That's all people do on this board: talk about fights they've seen and how they disagree or agree on what occurred.

But if anyone disagrees about Greb, you paint them as not knowing anything - when you've seen NONE of his fights.

You blow off accounts of Greb losses (by people who were there), because more people said Greb won, and you never saw squat.

You're the most biased person on this board when it comes to Greb.

I'm not here to bash the guy. I'm just pointing out the obvious. When we can see him in the ring, he'll be scrutinized like everyone else. And so will the guys he faced and how they performed that night compared to other nights in their careers. And so will the scoring. And so will the guys who scored it.

That's what we do to everyone. But we can't with him, because the film isn't there.

When it is, he'll go under the same microscope.

And if he looks awkward and bad in the ring, which all fighters do but Greb never has because we haven't seen him fight ... that will hurt him like it hurts all of them when they look bad in the ring.

In this interview you conducted, at around the 16 minute mark, you say even people who saw Greb couldn't believe he was winning these fights because he looked amateurish. But he threw a lot and he had great endurance so he'd edge them.

At the 15:00 mark, you said you envisioned Greb being a cross between Mayorga and Calzaghe, someone who is awkward like Mayorga but busy.

I think THAT would disappoint most ... if they saw Greb and he looked like a busier Ricardo Mayorga who couldn't punch? (YIKES)

Even you seem to admit when film is viewed of him he's going to take a hit in how he's perceived. Being awkward, holding a lot and being busy with a free hand isn't how I think most envision his greatest wins.

Those are the types of fights people tend to dislike today, regardless of whether they were the norm and preferred in Pennsylvania a 100 years ago.

This content is protected

 

No but Ali is considered by most the greatest HW in history because of the totality of his body of work. Just like Greb he has a great resume. Cherry picking one fight that was controversial doesnt diminish his greatness or what he accomplished so you are essentially proving my point by singling out Ali.

And you havent been paying attention if you think I give two shits what a bunch of people who Ive never met who sit around cherry picking their data in order to "win" arguments think. I dont. When assessing ANY fighter's greatness you assess the totality of their work. Not one fight you saw 3 minutes of and think you spotted him drop his left a couple of times when he should have had it close to his chin.

Who is the objective observer? The guy who has spent nearly two decades researching the man and his era and has forgotten more about it than you will ever read in a lifetime (if you ever actually chose to do some homework before you pontificate) or the guy who labels everyone who wrote about that era "drunks." Since when is taken a consensus of expert opinions and reports along with fight footage, training footage, first hand interviews etc etc over the course of 12 years to put together a complete picture of the mans life and career a bad thing? Only in an era where education is being defunded and giving a student a broad education is demonized would someone pretend that his ignorance trumps comprehensive research. I will trust the THOUSANDS of eye witness accounts I researched over a guy sitting in his moms basement denigrating a generation of the sport that understood what they were looking at far better than the Max Kellerman's of the world that spoon feed you the "knowledge" you mill around in that mush you call a brain.

You have absolutely ZERO idea of what Ive seen and I can promise you without question that Ive seen more of Greb and his opponents than you ever will.

Kearns certainly thought Greb was a threat, he admitted as much. Dempsey certainly thought Greb was a threat. The numerous promoters who tried to match them only to be foiled by Dempsey and Kearns, certainly thought Greb was a threat. Gene Tunney and Tommy Gibbons certainly thought Greb was a threat to Dempsey, they both said so AFTER they fought Dempsey and would know what both men were capable of. E. R. Dickerson, one of the foremost authorities on the sport for decades stated numerous times that Greb would have beaten Dempsey and that Dempsey ducked him. He knew both men well and knew Greb far better than the New York press writers who went on to write much Greb's myth after he died. George Barton who was one of the foremost authorities on the sport, a former boxer, referee, judge newspaper reporter, trainer, and head of the NBA stated the same. I could fill this post with lists of expert opinions of people who had intimate knowledge of the two men and thought Greb was a threat to Dempsey and that Dempsey avoided him. But I'll stop there and question what this has to do with what we were previously discussing beyond you wanting to deflect the conversation.

This is whats called taking a consensus, its what a good researcher does. I never ignored any minority opinion in my book. Thats a ****ing lie on your part and if youd actually read it youd know that. I gave every opinion in my book and allowed the reader to draw their conclusions. However, if you have 6 newspapers in a town and 5 say Greb won a fight and 1 says it was draw then yes, I would include the one opinion but to pretend the other five expert opinions dont outweigh the one is ignorant.

Really? So if a fight is judged by three judges and one dissents should we give the one dissenting judges vote more weight than the other two? Is that what you call objective? No, thats exactly how fights are judges: On a majority opinion of experts. So its perfectly objective to state how all of the extent expert opinions were recorded. If a moron such as yourself chooses to read five reports and four of them say fighter A won and one says fighter B won and the moron (you) chooses to believe fighter B won the fight. Thats your prerogative and my book clearly gives you this information. Most people wont agree with you and most people would think you have an agenda (which of course you do) but you have the right to be stupid. Im curious though: If instead of dominating the vast majority of his fights both on the cards and in newspapers Greb had been judged the loser of his bouts and I did what you suggest and took the minority opinions to paint Greb as the winner in these bouts would I be objective or would I be showing that I had a bias toward Greb? Most would say I would be biased in doing that, therefore you giving more credence to the relative few times that even a minority of opinions voted against Greb illustrates your bias and your agenda.

And when they cant they rely on the word of the experts who actually saw it, not some yahoo who hasnt even read the reports for himself.

So people dont talk about the merits of men like John L Sullivan, Young Griffo, Maxie Rosenbloom, or fights like Robinson-Gavilan or Burley-Moore? Ok, good to know Ive been imaging all of those threads.

 

There is a difference between having an informed opinion and disagreeing with the consensus and you labeling everyone who ever saw him fight "drunks." Im sorry you feel wounded that I have zero respect for your opinion but you have never once shown your opinion to be based on any research into the subject or fact. You have an idea that youve set in your mind and you simply argue that point in generalities and never give specifics to any one instance, you cherry pick, you put words and arguments into peoples mouths, you obfuscate, and you misrepresent both my book and much Ive what I and others have said. So no, I dont have any respect for your opinion. As for you or anyone else not know anything, when I disdain your incredible lack of knowledge on the subject dont feel too bad. This is a subject Ive studied for years. I have the largest film collection from this era, the largest collection of photographs of Greb and his opponents, the largest collection of first hands sources compiled, Ive conducted interviews with people who knew the man, his family, friends, and opponents, etc. If anyone out there thinks Im talking out of my ass they can come compare notes. If you honestly want to people to believe you have done as much homework as I have in this era and subject then at least start trying to show in your arguments that youve done SOMETHING rather than cobble together your pathetic arguments denigrating newspaper men and newspaper decisions which seems to be only generic argument you can point to against Greb and completely ignores my previous post which pointed out that Greb's results and dominance are supported by DECISIONS rendered by JUDGES as well... or were all of those judges drunk as well??

Give me an example. You keep saying this and I will keep repeating GIVE ME A ****ING EXAMPLE! What Tunney 2? **** yeah I blow of the handfull of reports that said he won that fight. Im supported by a majority of something like FIVE to ONE of people who not only thought Greb won but said he won so big that it was as bad a beating as their first fight and one of the worst robberies in New York history. You know, NEW YORK TUNNEY"S HOMETOWN where the fight was held and these reporters were based? What else? And more to the point when in my book did ignore those minority reports? NOT ONCE. So dont sit here and lie about what Ive written. You wouldnt do it to my ****ing face so dont do it here without giving actual examples Greg. Show me where Ive ever taken a majority of reports that said Greb lost a fight and twisted it to say he won. Show me where Ive ignored ANYWHERE any report that said he lost. You cant.

Im biased because I think the guy with more wins against more champions and hall of famers than any other fighter in the hall of fame, a guy who terrorized three divisions and packed 300 fights into a thirteen year career was a great fighter, maybe the greatest fighter? A guy who has a record that is universally (outside of you) accepted as one of the greatest, maybe the greatest, ever put to paper. Im biased because i think a guy who was strong enough to muscle around 200 pound fighters while only weighing 165, who had an all time great chin, who was reputed to be as fast as a bantamweight, who had incredible stamina, was extremely hard to hit, and very busy would have been a tough opponent for anybody 160-175 in history? Thats like saying Im biased because I think Pizza tastes good.

And it wont change a damn thing when it comes down to it. The ONLY way it would change anything is if we find the film of Greb-Walker, a fight every single paper (expect Walker's hometown) AND the JUDGES had Greb winning and for some reason Greb hobbled around the ring like a 60 year old man while Walker beats the hell out of him. That might get people wondering what EVERYONE, including Walker who said Greb was the greatest he ever fought and who said Greb kicked his ass royally, was looking at. But only a moron would actually expect that to happen. Its much more likely that the consensus opinion was correct and that Greb won a back and forth action packed classic.

And you couldnt do it for Jeanette until I found that film of him getting his ass kicked by Langford. Maybe thats what this is really about. Everybody could see how ordinary Jeanette looked, that is certainly one film that changed opinions didnt it. Remember how suddenly everyone pissed you off when they started scrutinizing Jeanettes record and said that he was the least qualified of the black fighters to get a crack at Johnson and likely would have been the easiest for Johnson to beat. Wonder if that has anything to do with your constant rants. LOL.

I hope so. Im sure he'll stand up just fine. Unlike Jeanette.

Considering he was always said to look awkward I dont know why that would hurt him. Only someone going in expecting him to look like Robinson would let that effect their opinion of him. Thats simply unrealistic. And, as I said, it wont change the fact that he still largely dominated the greatest resume of anyone in the HOF.

Exactly. Have you been sleeping? Did you hit your head? When have I ever painted him as anything but this? Just today, in one of the posts above I posted: "I think the problem is people expecting Greb to look like Sugar Ray Robinson or something. Greb was considered an awkward fighter with an aesthetically unpleasant style during his lifetime" You are the one trying to set the bar high for how he looked aesthetically, likely because you want people to be unimpressed by him. Sorry, it doesnt work like that. He was often called amateurish, weird, awkward, some said he looked like he didnt know where his punches were going to land he just threw them. Few argued with the results.

If it disappoints them they clearly werent listening. Nobody who knows anything about Greb would expect him too look like a classical boxer puncher. Thats like saying "I finally saw Hamed and he looked nothing like Robinson, Im disappointed." If you are disappointed because you had an incorrect preconceived notion thats your fault. Sorry, but maybe you should read some more before you go in thinking Greb is going to fight like Sugar Ray Leonard.

If I have a realistic expectation of his style and abilities particularly in the latter stages of his career when he was blind in one eye and had no depth perception why would I let a film color the correct impression I had of him going into viewing the film??? That makes no sense. Im on record numerous times as saying I think hed look awkward and yet I his results speak for themselves. Yet I see film of him looking awkward while beating a HOFer and Im supposed to be disappointed that he doesnt look different? Thats a stupid argument.

Considering boxing rivaled baseball in popularity during Greb's era and today its a nitch sport populated by pussies and "businessman fighters" and fans who think Floyd Mayweather is greater than Ali, I couldnt care less what people dislike today. Its why I spend most of boxing viewing time on old fights when fighters actually fought and could go 15 rounds rather than these coddled clowns who cherry pick their opponents and collect umpteen meaningless belts in weight classes that never existed 3 decades ago. Yeah, Im perfectly fine with not caring if fans "today" dont like what they see in the older fights or understand it.

 

Far from proving your point.

If only results mattered, and not how a guy or his opponent looks in the ring, then Ali KO1 Liston would be the greatest win of Ali's career and the greatest first-round KO in heavyweight title history.

But it's not. Because we can see it.

When you see a Harry Greb fight, let me know.

Until then, you're as in the dark as to how he actually looked in the ring and how his opponents looked against him and if those results in his favor were warranted as everyone else, whether you care to admit it or not.

And if you didn't care what I thought, you wouldn't have posted thousands of words trying to argue with me.

VIEWING boxers and their opponents is another way of judging their careers. We can't view Greb right now.

When we can, he'll be judged by how he and his opponents look in the ring and if the scores were accurate, just like everyone else. I don't know why this bothers you so much. It's true for every boxer.

If you just said, "Yes, if Greb was studied on film as extensively as every other boxer is, how he's viewed might take a hit, even by me, but he's still great," you'd probably be seen as less of a boob.

I certainly don't insult people for not seeing boxers who I haven't seen. I don't know why you have this holier than thou attitude. You haven't seen anything on Greb, either. When you see Harry Greb fight, then you can become an expert on Harry Greb like the rest of us.

Until then, you're just repeating what you heard someone else say - and you pick and choose which stories you choose to believe.

So you don't have anything over me or anyone else on this board. You can scream and yell and holler and insult me, but it's true.

So you can step off your high horse any time.

When there's a Greb fight we can all analyze, let me know. Until then, you're just regurgitating stories about something you've never seen.

 

Ill let you know when theres a Greb fight if you let me know when youve actually read about the subjects you denigrate so much. Fair?

 

Lol, oh youre an expert now? Thats rich.

 

I'm not denigrating any subject. I'm simply saying when we see him in action, and he's critiqued like other boxers are critiqued, and every flaw is examined and picked apart, and we see which opponents looked like garbage that night or which scores we don't agree with, like every other fighter, his UNPICKED resume will get thoroughly PICKED. And his reputation will take a hit, like everyone's does.

I don't know why that bothers you so much. It happens to all of them.

 

That's an incredibly stupid argument, the opposite could be and more importantly probably would be true. Where he would be even more praised because he was difficult to figure out which is why he was so incredibly successful.. Your arguments are just garbage because there is no film on him so you cling to that … Dosent matter what he looks like to you, he gets the win and that is what the sport is all about … since you haven't figured that out yet